How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (1 Viewer)

[Captain Cranks]

A Literalist means that I actually believe the Word of God rather than trying to change the meaning into what I want it to mean. I am not God, I can't change His Word. I must abide by what He says rather than trying to make up my own beliefs. That is the way of Cain and we know how Cain ended up in the Bible don't we? He wouldn't believe God. True Faith actually believes God when He tells you something. The Bible is God's perfect Word.

Right. From an interpretation standpoint I think you have the upper hand when compared to less literal interpretations. However, I think the literalist has far greater tension with today's society than those that take a more flexible track.

For example, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 which says, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Do you go to a church that upholds this principle? If not, why not?

I'm wondering if we are on the same page of what interpretation is and how to go about it. The way I use the word, I'd say interpreting is the process of determining what the communicator means by the words they used. Agree? Disagree?

When I think of how to interpret, I think it requires more than just defining each of the words used. In short, I think good interpretation accounts for language and culture of the author and their assumed audience, and considers genre. Good interpretation uses all the relevant information possible to accomplish what I said above: to determine what the communicator means by the words they used. Agree? Disagree?

Agree without qualification on your first point.

I think I disagree with the second, however. IF we're saying the Bible is the word of God, what would drive us to put the words in the context of the time they're written? AFAIK, there's no 'these rules only apply to our time. Kindly ignore if society moves beyond these conditions' guidance in the Bible. It's the reader, whose society has evolved from those conditions, who is prompting the need for context, likely as a way to move away from what is literally written, not the Bible itself.

Perhaps you can use the 1 Corinthians verses above as an example where moving from a literal interpretation to one where the context of the time is appropriate.

 

[Captain Cranks]

For example, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 which says, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

On a serious note. I dug into old notes in my study bible to see how my old pastor taught this patriarchal chauvinism. He claimed Paul was addressing the chaotic church in Corinth and trying to bring order so the church leaders could lead. In this church, those leaders were all men. Weak sauce if you ask me especially that it was canonized with plenty of opportunity to omit it in the various councils that fleshed out the bible. They added and omitted many things. Some research argues exactly that as some earlier manuscripts do not have the passage and the passage occurs at the end of Paul's take on the subject. Paul is also the writer of Acts and Romans both of which refer to female church leaders, Pheobe and Prisilla. So I'm sticking with the joke made above.

Interesting. For the nerds, here's the NET footnote on those verses:

▼tc Some scholars have argued that vv. 34-35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697-710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5,” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262). This is because the Western witnesses (D F G ar b vgms Ambst) have these verses after v. 40, while the rest of the tradition retains them here. There are no mss that omit the verses. Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. Fee points out that “Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul wrote them originally as our vv. 34-35” (First Corinthians [NICNT], 700). In a footnote he adds, “The point is that if it were already in the text after v. 33, there is no reason for a copyist to make such a radical transposition.” Although it is not our intention to interact with proponents of the shorter text in any detail here, a couple of points ought to be made. (1) Since these verses occur in all witnesses to 1 Corinthians, to argue that they are not original means that they must have crept into the text at the earliest stage of transmission. How early? Earlier than when the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) made its way into the text (late 2nd, early 3rd century?), earlier than the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) was produced (early 2nd century?), and earlier than even “in Ephesus” was added to Eph 1:1 (upon reception of the letter by the first church to which it came, the church at Ephesus)—because in these other, similar places, the earliest witnesses do not add the words. This text thus stands as remarkable, unique. Indeed, since all the witnesses have the words, the evidence points to them as having been inserted into the original document. Who would have done such a thing? And, further, why would scribes have regarded it as original since it was obviously added in the margin? This leads to our second point. (2) Following a suggestion made by E. E. Ellis (“The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. 14:34-5),” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 213-20 [the suggestion comes at the end of the article, almost as an afterthought]), it is likely that Paul himself added the words in the margin. Since it was so much material to add, Paul could have squelched any suspicions by indicating that the words were his (e.g., by adding his name or some other means [cf. 2 Thess 3:17]). This way no scribe would think that the material was inauthentic. (Incidentally, this is unlike the textual problem at Rom 5:1, for there only one letter was at stake; hence, scribes would easily have thought that the “text” reading was original. And Paul would hardly be expected to add his signature for one letter.) (3) What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the autographic text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), before the instructions about the resurrection began. Although there were no chapter divisions in the earliest period of copying, scribes could still detect thought breaks (note the usage in the earliest papyri). (4) The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text. Otherwise, one has a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity [cf. J. E. Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” JSNT 26 [2003]: 217-36.). There are apparently no mss that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above.

This just speaks to the manipulation the Bible has undergone to reach us in its current state. There were nefarious actors along the way who altered, omitted, or added things with selfish intent.

 

[dgreen]

A Literalist means that I actually believe the Word of God rather than trying to change the meaning into what I want it to mean. I am not God, I can't change His Word. I must abide by what He says rather than trying to make up my own beliefs. That is the way of Cain and we know how Cain ended up in the Bible don't we? He wouldn't believe God. True Faith actually believes God when He tells you something. The Bible is God's perfect Word.

Right. From an interpretation standpoint I think you have the upper hand when compared to less literal interpretations. However, I think the literalist has far greater tension with today's society than those that take a more flexible track.

For example, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 which says, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Do you go to a church that upholds this principle? If not, why not?

I'm wondering if we are on the same page of what interpretation is and how to go about it. The way I use the word, I'd say interpreting is the process of determining what the communicator means by the words they used. Agree? Disagree?

When I think of how to interpret, I think it requires more than just defining each of the words used. In short, I think good interpretation accounts for language and culture of the author and their assumed audience, and considers genre. Good interpretation uses all the relevant information possible to accomplish what I said above: to determine what the communicator means by the words they used. Agree? Disagree?

Agree without qualification on your first point.

I think I disagree with the second, however. IF we're saying the Bible is the word of God, what would drive us to put the words in the context of the time they're written? AFAIK, there's no 'these rules only apply to our time. Kindly ignore if society moves beyond these conditions' guidance in the Bible. It's the reader, whose society has evolved from those conditions, who is prompting the need for context, likely as a way to move away from what is literally written, not the Bible itself.

What drives me to put the words in the context they were written is the fact that they were written in that context. I'm not sure why I'd do anything else. I do think there is some ideas among Christians that assume that if the Bible is the word of God then it must have all peoples across all times and geographies in view. But, I completely disagree with that and see no reason to assume that. While I do believe the Bible is the word of God, I still assume it must follow standard conventions for human communication. It uses human language, human idioms and figures of speech, human-created literary genres, human cultural context, etc. I think if we don't do that, we are left with no other way to interpret other than to put everything in OUR cultural context, which I think is the biggest mistake we make. I make that mistake regularly, but I hope it's usually unintentional rather than me intentionally requiring God's words as communicated by ancient Jewish authors to behave according to 21st century American conventions.

Perhaps you can use the 1 Corinthians verses above as an example where moving from a literal interpretation to one where the context of the time is appropriate.

I don't know too much of the context of Corinth. I'm sure I've heard sermons on it before, but nothing specific that I necessarily remember. What I'd start with, though, is considering the genre. This is a letter. It's from Paul to the church in Corinth in the first century. There's no reason for me to assume that Paul has my congregation in Virginia in 2025 in view when he said those words. Also, letters tend to be in response to something. Many times, we only see Paul's answers to issues and questions that we don't know about. (I can get more into that later in regards to something I'm more familiar with - "works of the law" in Galatians.) First, I should try to figure out what Paul was communicating to them (interpret). Once I've done that, and hopefully have a good understanding of why he said what he said, then I can start to think about how it does or doesn't apply to my situation.

Similar to the above discussion about what it means to be the word of God, I don't think it requires that every word in it is directed at all people throughout all times. I don't think the primary purpose of the Bible is to tell each individual throughout all time how to behave in every scenario.

Ok, I'm going to watch the Commanders hopefully secure that 6th seed over the evil Cowboys! I'll be back later.

 

[dozer]

The Bible is God's perfect Word.

Correction: The Bible is man's interpretation of what God's perfect word would be.

Also, man is often wrong.

 

[Chaos34]

Ok, I'm going to watch the Commanders hopefully secure that 6th seed over the evil Cowboys! I'll be back later.

Sorry man. I said a prayer for Trey Lance this morning.

 

[Paddington]

The Bible is God's perfect Word.

Correction: The Bible is man's interpretation of what God's perfect word would be.

Also, man is often wrong.

Jesus quoted the Bible as authoritative from God. Peter said it was the Word of God. Paul said it was the Word of God.

Jesus

Luke 24:25

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

Peter

2 Peter 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Paul

2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[Paddington]

Ok, I'm going to watch the Commanders hopefully secure that 6th seed over the evil Cowboys! I'll be back later.

Sorry man. I said a prayer for Trey Lance this morning.

GO LIONS!

 

[Navin Johnson]

2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture, or just the ones selected at Nicaea?

 

[dgreen]

Importance of understanding culture and genre @Captain Cranks

So, like I said, I personally haven't looked into the Corinth context as it relates to Paul's words about women. However, I have learned a little about Galatia and Paul's use of the phrase "works of the law". Paul uses those words twice in Romans and four times in Galatians. In Galatians, he says:

• 2:16 - they know they aren't justified by works of the law, but by faith in/of Jesus
• 3:2 - rhetorically asks if they received the spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith
• 3:5 - basically repeats the same rhetorical question as in 3:2
• 3:10 - those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse

One key thing to pay attention to with Paul's letter is who he is talking to. Sometimes he's talking to Jews and other times Gentiles. A big part of Galatians is addressing whether or not Gentiles need to be circumcised. However, circumcision isn't just about the actual snipping. It's a sign of taking on the full covenant of Judaism. In the first century, Judaism was debating how to deal with Gentiles wanting to be part of this whole God thing. They had no issue with Gentiles being loved by God or saved by God or any of that. But, what do Gentiles need to do to be part of the covenant family? Judaism basically decides that you have to take on the same covenant they have with God. Circumcision and baptism are the two markers required of converts to show they are now in the covenant family. Baptism would signify they've turned away from their pagan Gentile life and circumcision shows they've agreed to the Sinai covenant. Paul's argument in Galatians is that Gentiles don't have to do all that. Gentiles are welcome into covenant with God without becoming Jewish. They join by faith.

So, what about the works of the law? This is where genre comes in. This is a letter from Paul to Galatia. Letters are written for a reason. Paul is responding to something but we don't necessarily know what those things are. We only see one side of the conversation unless we have additional evidence about what's going on on the other end. At worst, this letter has been interpreted to show that Judaism was a works-based or letter-of-the-law religion. The assumption is that's what Paul is arguing against. God was done with the Jews and Judaism and now Christianity is the right religion and was about grace and love and the spirit of the law, unlike those legalistic Jews. However, some scholars have noted that "works of the law" doesn't appear anywhere in the Rabbinic literature and have proposed that Paul either misunderstood the Judaism of his day or created a strawman to support the point he wanted to make about justification by faith.

Interestingly, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a letter was found entitled Miqsat Ma'ase HaTorah. Early translations titled it something like "Certain Precepts of the Law". Miqsat can mean things like "certain" or "some", but it can also signify a level of importance. And the letter focuses on certain "precepts of the law" that the author is encouraging the recipient to do, so they seem important to the author. As for Ma'ase HaTorah, using the ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, it's clear that the Greek translation of those words are Ergon Nomou. Those are the exact words Paul uses that we translate in English as "works of the law". This DSS letter is talking about "works of the law".

But, we probably shouldn't just think of it as "works of the law". It's probably better to think of it as "Works of the Law". The laws detailed are unique. It's a category of laws, rather than just a reference to any and every commandment. Kind of like how we might say "freedom of speech". We could break down each word to define what the phrase means. But, the phrase probably mostly refers to the first amendment and the laws against the government restricting speech. It's better though of as "Freedom of Speech". The DSS letter focused on cleanliness and purity, primarily things that separate Jews from Gentiles. There are laws about Gentiles in the temple, food laws, and other things that are in the clean/unclean realm. It's not talking about murder or stealing or loving your neighbor nor does it have the full Torah in mind.

So, if scholars (who are part of what's known as The New Perspective on Paul) are right, Paul isn't arguing against Judaism and Torah. By saying that justification doesn't come from works of the law, he's arguing that those types of laws that uniquely apply to Jews aren't the path to justification. Justification is available to all, even Gentiles, by faith. He even uses Abraham as part of his argument to show that Abraham was justified prior to being circumcised and certainly well before the Sinai covenant. Gentiles don't need to join the Sinai covenant through circumcision and become Jewish. They just need to be like Abraham and join that Abrahamic covenant by way of faith.

The DSS sect were a minority view within Judaism. The rabbinic literature and the history of Judaism show that the Pharisees were normative, not this group hiding out in the desert. Paul's not arguing against mainstream Judaism. Notice in 2:16 Paul says "we know...". It was never about justification by the category of commandments known as "works of the law". So if it was never about that, Paul's wondering why they are entertaining the idea of making it that. He's arguing against a minority opinion that appears to have crept into the church at Galatia that says Gentiles have to become Jews. Paul says they don't. Gentiles are to remain Gentiles. Jews are to remain Jews. Both should follow Jesus and each have a role in the kingdom.

These are possibilities that weren't on people's radar before finding the DSS. The DSS gave us so much more information about the culture of Second Temple Judaism that previous generations didn't have.

 

[dgreen]

2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture, or just the ones selected at Nicaea?

I'm wanting to learn more about the development of the Canon, so I'm certainly not super knowledgeable there right now. However, I'm pretty confident Nicaea had nothing to do with it. While the history of the Bible isn't as clean as many believers would want it to be, it's also not as scandalous as others claim.

 

[TennesseeJed]

it's also not as scandalous as others claim

I am not sure what you mean by "scandalous" here.

As someone who believes the bible is not sacrosanct - I think it's important to understand the human construct of the writings, individually, and collectively. Who is telling the story, what is/are/were their motivations in telling that story? Who is editing the story?

For example, if you are putting together the books of the bible and you want to tell a certain narrative - then you are going to chose writings that support that narrative, and leave other parts out. I don't think that is "scandalous".

Or, if you are writing/telling a certain story - and you want to portray god in a certain light, or deliver a particular massage about god, then that is going to shape the telling of that story. I think that is human nature at play - not scandal.

The bible is written and edited by humans, for humans. It is not divine.

 

[dgreen]

it's also not as scandalous as others claim

I am not sure what you mean by "scandalous" here.

As someone who believes the bible is not sacrosanct - I think it's important to understand the human construct of the writings, individually, and collectively. Who is telling the story, what is/are/were their motivations in telling that story? Who is editing the story?

For example, if you are putting together the books of the bible and you want to tell a certain narrative - then you are going to chose writings that support that narrative, and leave other parts out. I don't think that is "scandalous".

Or, if you are writing/telling a certain story - and you want to portray god in a certain light, or deliver a particular massage about god, then that is going to shape the telling of that story. I think that is human nature at play - not scandal.

The bible is written and edited by humans, for humans. It is not divine.

I think that all makes sense. I think what I consider "scandalous" is what I assume people mean when they talk about this topic. For example, you talk about the desire to deliver a particular message about god. That makes sense to me and doesn't seem scandalous. My interpretation of how some people talk about that, though, is something like, "They wanted to deliver a particular message about god even though they didn't actually believe that was the accurate message about god." For example, why wasn't the Gospel of Thomas included? Well, it's one thing to say "it doesn't align with the particular message about god", but it would be another to imply, "it reflects what they believed to be an accurate message about god but a group of people didn't like it so they just decided not to include it." To me, it would be scandalous for a group of people to think something belongs in the canon and then exclude it, sometimes suggested for the purpose of controlling the masses. When I say it's not scandalous, I mean that things were excluded for good and valid reasons.

People with a bias towards a charitable interpretation of how the Bible came about, will say that books were included based on whether or not they thought the earliest Christian communities considered that book to be authoritative or not. In other words, the process wasn't to declare what people should find to be authoritative, rather it was to simply recognize what they thought earlier generations considered authoritative. The question wasn't, "Do we want to claim this book is authoritative?" It was, "Did they consider it authoritative?"

Of course, there's the tricky issue that there really is no such thing as "the" canon. Worldwide Christianity doesn't all have the same Bible. Some groups see certain books as more authoritative than other groups see them. So, I'm not even sure it's accurate talk about "putting together the books of the Bible". Sure, when an emperor or king says he wants a Bible scribed or printed, people have to make a decision on what to include. But, that decision isn't binding on all people everywhere. It's their decision at that time and place. And we've seen that different efforts have included and excluded different things. People have been free to do so.

And I want to repeat that this is an area I want to learn more about. I certainly don't want to make it sound like I think there's never been any abuse or bad intent or scandalous actions in this area. I'm sure there have been bad actors.

 

[TennesseeJed]

it's also not as scandalous as others claim

I am not sure what you mean by "scandalous" here.

As someone who believes the bible is not sacrosanct - I think it's important to understand the human construct of the writings, individually, and collectively. Who is telling the story, what is/are/were their motivations in telling that story? Who is editing the story?

For example, if you are putting together the books of the bible and you want to tell a certain narrative - then you are going to chose writings that support that narrative, and leave other parts out. I don't think that is "scandalous".

Or, if you are writing/telling a certain story - and you want to portray god in a certain light, or deliver a particular massage about god, then that is going to shape the telling of that story. I think that is human nature at play - not scandal.

The bible is written and edited by humans, for humans. It is not divine.

I think that all makes sense. I think what I consider "scandalous" is what I assume people mean when they talk about this topic. For example, you talk about the desire to deliver a particular message about god. That makes sense to me and doesn't seem scandalous. My interpretation of how some people talk about that, though, is something like, "They wanted to deliver a particular message about god even though they didn't actually believe that was the accurate message about god." For example, why wasn't the Gospel of Thomas included? Well, it's one thing to say "it doesn't align with the particular message about god", but it would be another to imply, "it reflects what they believed to be an accurate message about god but a group of people didn't like it so they just decided not to include it." To me, it would be scandalous for a group of people to think something belongs in the canon and then exclude it, sometimes suggested for the purpose of controlling the masses. When I say it's not scandalous, I mean that things were excluded for good and valid reasons.

People with a bias towards a charitable interpretation of how the Bible came about, will say that books were included based on whether or not they thought the earliest Christian communities considered that book to be authoritative or not. In other words, the process wasn't to declare what people should find to be authoritative, rather it was to simply recognize what they thought earlier generations considered authoritative. The question wasn't, "Do we want to claim this book is authoritative?" It was, "Did they consider it authoritative?"

Of course, there's the tricky issue that there really is no such thing as "the" canon. Worldwide Christianity doesn't all have the same Bible. Some groups see certain books as more authoritative than other groups see them. So, I'm not even sure it's accurate talk about "putting together the books of the Bible". Sure, when an emperor or king says he wants a Bible scribed or printed, people have to make a decision on what to include. But, that decision isn't binding on all people everywhere. It's their decision at that time and place. And we've seen that different efforts have included and excluded different things. People have been free to do so.

And I want to repeat that this is an area I want to learn more about. I certainly don't want to make it sound like I think there's never been any abuse or bad intent or scandalous actions in this area. I'm sure there have been bad actors.

I think all of this together is one of the concerns that some people have whenever you hear someone describe the meaning of the bible, or specific passages, as "obvious".

There really is nothing "obvious" about the bible. Its all a matter of interpretation - who believes which passages, who ascribes what importance, etc.

And, even if you take the bible as divine, or divinely inspired - I don't think anyone can rationally claim that any passage, or any collective passages, have an "obvious" meaning. If the meaning were obvious - there would not be so much scholarly debate even amongst the most devout believers.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Importance of understanding culture and genre @Captain Cranks

So, like I said, I personally haven't looked into the Corinth context as it relates to Paul's words about women. However, I have learned a little about Galatia and Paul's use of the phrase "works of the law". Paul uses those words twice in Romans and four times in Galatians. In Galatians, he says:

• 2:16 - they know they aren't justified by works of the law, but by faith in/of Jesus
• 3:2 - rhetorically asks if they received the spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith
• 3:5 - basically repeats the same rhetorical question as in 3:2
• 3:10 - those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse

One key thing to pay attention to with Paul's letter is who he is talking to. Sometimes he's talking to Jews and other times Gentiles. A big part of Galatians is addressing whether or not Gentiles need to be circumcised. However, circumcision isn't just about the actual snipping. It's a sign of taking on the full covenant of Judaism. In the first century, Judaism was debating how to deal with Gentiles wanting to be part of this whole God thing. They had no issue with Gentiles being loved by God or saved by God or any of that. But, what do Gentiles need to do to be part of the covenant family? Judaism basically decides that you have to take on the same covenant they have with God. Circumcision and baptism are the two markers required of converts to show they are now in the covenant family. Baptism would signify they've turned away from their pagan Gentile life and circumcision shows they've agreed to the Sinai covenant. Paul's argument in Galatians is that Gentiles don't have to do all that. Gentiles are welcome into covenant with God without becoming Jewish. They join by faith.

So, what about the works of the law? This is where genre comes in. This is a letter from Paul to Galatia. Letters are written for a reason. Paul is responding to something but we don't necessarily know what those things are. We only see one side of the conversation unless we have additional evidence about what's going on on the other end. At worst, this letter has been interpreted to show that Judaism was a works-based or letter-of-the-law religion. The assumption is that's what Paul is arguing against. God was done with the Jews and Judaism and now Christianity is the right religion and was about grace and love and the spirit of the law, unlike those legalistic Jews. However, some scholars have noted that "works of the law" doesn't appear anywhere in the Rabbinic literature and have proposed that Paul either misunderstood the Judaism of his day or created a strawman to support the point he wanted to make about justification by faith.

Interestingly, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a letter was found entitled Miqsat Ma'ase HaTorah. Early translations titled it something like "Certain Precepts of the Law". Miqsat can mean things like "certain" or "some", but it can also signify a level of importance. And the letter focuses on certain "precepts of the law" that the author is encouraging the recipient to do, so they seem important to the author. As for Ma'ase HaTorah, using the ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, it's clear that the Greek translation of those words are Ergon Nomou. Those are the exact words Paul uses that we translate in English as "works of the law". This DSS letter is talking about "works of the law".

But, we probably shouldn't just think of it as "works of the law". It's probably better to think of it as "Works of the Law". The laws detailed are unique. It's a category of laws, rather than just a reference to any and every commandment. Kind of like how we might say "freedom of speech". We could break down each word to define what the phrase means. But, the phrase probably mostly refers to the first amendment and the laws against the government restricting speech. It's better though of as "Freedom of Speech". The DSS letter focused on cleanliness and purity, primarily things that separate Jews from Gentiles. There are laws about Gentiles in the temple, food laws, and other things that are in the clean/unclean realm. It's not talking about murder or stealing or loving your neighbor nor does it have the full Torah in mind.

So, if scholars (who are part of what's known as The New Perspective on Paul) are right, Paul isn't arguing against Judaism and Torah. By saying that justification doesn't come from works of the law, he's arguing that those types of laws that uniquely apply to Jews aren't the path to justification. Justification is available to all, even Gentiles, by faith. He even uses Abraham as part of his argument to show that Abraham was justified prior to being circumcised and certainly well before the Sinai covenant. Gentiles don't need to join the Sinai covenant through circumcision and become Jewish. They just need to be like Abraham and join that Abrahamic covenant by way of faith.

The DSS sect were a minority view within Judaism. The rabbinic literature and the history of Judaism show that the Pharisees were normative, not this group hiding out in the desert. Paul's not arguing against mainstream Judaism. Notice in 2:16 Paul says "we know...". It was never about justification by the category of commandments known as "works of the law". So if it was never about that, Paul's wondering why they are entertaining the idea of making it that. He's arguing against a minority opinion that appears to have crept into the church at Galatia that says Gentiles have to become Jews. Paul says they don't. Gentiles are to remain Gentiles. Jews are to remain Jews. Both should follow Jesus and each have a role in the kingdom.

These are possibilities that weren't on people's radar before finding the DSS. The DSS gave us so much more information about the culture of Second Temple Judaism that previous generations didn't have.

Thanks for the education on this. I think this type of analysis is invaluable to understanding the historicity of the Bible. I also think the need to adjust for the time and culture of when it was written undermines the Bible's credibility as the Word of God. Let's just assume for a second that the Bible is divinely inspired. Rather than send a direct message to the entire world that would be timeless and applicable to all cultures, he allows a collection of writers in one small region of the earth to document the most significant occurrence in human history decades after it happens. Their writings undergo a series of alterations over the following centuries, some constructive, some with malintent, some through mistake until man presents us with the versions we see today. Now, 2,000 years later, we're tasked with considering the cultural norms of when it was written to correctly interpret how God wants us to behave in today's culture. So not only is God allowing his imperfect, sinful children to pass along his commandments, but he is also asking those imperfect, sinful children to interpret those commandments in an objective manner.

 

[dgreen]

it's also not as scandalous as others claim

I am not sure what you mean by "scandalous" here.

As someone who believes the bible is not sacrosanct - I think it's important to understand the human construct of the writings, individually, and collectively. Who is telling the story, what is/are/were their motivations in telling that story? Who is editing the story?

For example, if you are putting together the books of the bible and you want to tell a certain narrative - then you are going to chose writings that support that narrative, and leave other parts out. I don't think that is "scandalous".

Or, if you are writing/telling a certain story - and you want to portray god in a certain light, or deliver a particular massage about god, then that is going to shape the telling of that story. I think that is human nature at play - not scandal.

The bible is written and edited by humans, for humans. It is not divine.

I think that all makes sense. I think what I consider "scandalous" is what I assume people mean when they talk about this topic. For example, you talk about the desire to deliver a particular message about god. That makes sense to me and doesn't seem scandalous. My interpretation of how some people talk about that, though, is something like, "They wanted to deliver a particular message about god even though they didn't actually believe that was the accurate message about god." For example, why wasn't the Gospel of Thomas included? Well, it's one thing to say "it doesn't align with the particular message about god", but it would be another to imply, "it reflects what they believed to be an accurate message about god but a group of people didn't like it so they just decided not to include it." To me, it would be scandalous for a group of people to think something belongs in the canon and then exclude it, sometimes suggested for the purpose of controlling the masses. When I say it's not scandalous, I mean that things were excluded for good and valid reasons.

People with a bias towards a charitable interpretation of how the Bible came about, will say that books were included based on whether or not they thought the earliest Christian communities considered that book to be authoritative or not. In other words, the process wasn't to declare what people should find to be authoritative, rather it was to simply recognize what they thought earlier generations considered authoritative. The question wasn't, "Do we want to claim this book is authoritative?" It was, "Did they consider it authoritative?"

Of course, there's the tricky issue that there really is no such thing as "the" canon. Worldwide Christianity doesn't all have the same Bible. Some groups see certain books as more authoritative than other groups see them. So, I'm not even sure it's accurate talk about "putting together the books of the Bible". Sure, when an emperor or king says he wants a Bible scribed or printed, people have to make a decision on what to include. But, that decision isn't binding on all people everywhere. It's their decision at that time and place. And we've seen that different efforts have included and excluded different things. People have been free to do so.

And I want to repeat that this is an area I want to learn more about. I certainly don't want to make it sound like I think there's never been any abuse or bad intent or scandalous actions in this area. I'm sure there have been bad actors.

I think all of this together is one of the concerns that some people have whenever you hear someone describe the meaning of the bible, or specific passages, as "obvious".

There really is nothing "obvious" about the bible. Its all a matter of interpretation - who believes which passages, who ascribes what importance, etc.

And, even if you take the bible as divine, or divinely inspired - I don't think anyone can rationally claim that any passage, or any collective passages, have an "obvious" meaning. If the meaning were obvious - there would not be so much scholarly debate even amongst the most devout believers.

Well, I'm definitely on record as saying that I think there are a lot of complexities, so I'm with you there. But, I don't think clarity is necessarily in opposition to the need for interpretation. The way I use "interpretation", I'd say every piece of communication requires interpretation. Some is really easy and some is really hard, potentially even impossible. A bunch is somewhere in between.

If someone wants to claim the Bible is easy, I'll personally take the side that it's not. So, when people in this thread have claimed certain verses are obvious, I've looked for ways to question and challenge that. But if someone wants to take the side that every verse of the Bible is nearly impossible to interpret, I'd argue that we probably are pretty close to being right on a lot of it. I'm annoying that way.

 

[Chaos34]

Fwiw, Nicaea had nothing to do with establishing canon. It was a council to address the the Arian controversy. I so wanted to say Arian scandal. Briefly, after Emperor Constantine converted and made Christianity the state religion of Rome, he recognized the need for unity. A great strength of the Roman Empire from which the early church came was organization. There were several Judeo-"Catholic" sects, Arianism, some anti-semitic sects, city sects, rural sects, regional sects, community sects within regional sects, John the Baptist sects, Pauline sects. a dozen or more gnostic sects and more. It took 4-5 centuries of councils and decrees for what ended up as canon. The Judeo Christian and Arian movements were the two most popular, and they had a major disagreement - to trinity or not to trinity. To trinity won. The Nicene Creed was established. Arians were condemned and mostly lost to the fog of history. Constantine got his unified faith, established ceremonial things like the Easter date, and the roles of leaders like bishops and cardinals. He Romanized Christianity at Nicea. Canonizationalizing (maybe not a word) councils were 50 years down the road.

To me the scandal was "mainstream" Christians who'd been persecuted by Rome for 3 centuries used state power to persecute all dem other Christian sects. What we lost was a decent library of the earliest writings cuz they burned them along with those they persecuted. It wasn't as bad as I make it sound, but it was bad; and mostly I wish we didn't lose 99% of the secret teachings of the gnostics. I like some of what we didn't lose, find it compelling, but just some. Unfortunately most of it seems absurd and that sort of hurts the credibility of some stuff that makes me go hmmmm. I'm a sucker for the esoteric so there's that.

Also, the dead sea scrolls were found in Qumran. That was one of those rural regional sects, the Essenes. Rural folk and mainstream folk from population centers have quite different cultures, so using the Essenes as an example of the prevailing culture of 1st century Jewish Christians is probably a reach.

 

[dgreen]

Importance of understanding culture and genre @Captain Cranks

So, like I said, I personally haven't looked into the Corinth context as it relates to Paul's words about women. However, I have learned a little about Galatia and Paul's use of the phrase "works of the law". Paul uses those words twice in Romans and four times in Galatians. In Galatians, he says:

• 2:16 - they know they aren't justified by works of the law, but by faith in/of Jesus
• 3:2 - rhetorically asks if they received the spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith
• 3:5 - basically repeats the same rhetorical question as in 3:2
• 3:10 - those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse

One key thing to pay attention to with Paul's letter is who he is talking to. Sometimes he's talking to Jews and other times Gentiles. A big part of Galatians is addressing whether or not Gentiles need to be circumcised. However, circumcision isn't just about the actual snipping. It's a sign of taking on the full covenant of Judaism. In the first century, Judaism was debating how to deal with Gentiles wanting to be part of this whole God thing. They had no issue with Gentiles being loved by God or saved by God or any of that. But, what do Gentiles need to do to be part of the covenant family? Judaism basically decides that you have to take on the same covenant they have with God. Circumcision and baptism are the two markers required of converts to show they are now in the covenant family. Baptism would signify they've turned away from their pagan Gentile life and circumcision shows they've agreed to the Sinai covenant. Paul's argument in Galatians is that Gentiles don't have to do all that. Gentiles are welcome into covenant with God without becoming Jewish. They join by faith.

So, what about the works of the law? This is where genre comes in. This is a letter from Paul to Galatia. Letters are written for a reason. Paul is responding to something but we don't necessarily know what those things are. We only see one side of the conversation unless we have additional evidence about what's going on on the other end. At worst, this letter has been interpreted to show that Judaism was a works-based or letter-of-the-law religion. The assumption is that's what Paul is arguing against. God was done with the Jews and Judaism and now Christianity is the right religion and was about grace and love and the spirit of the law, unlike those legalistic Jews. However, some scholars have noted that "works of the law" doesn't appear anywhere in the Rabbinic literature and have proposed that Paul either misunderstood the Judaism of his day or created a strawman to support the point he wanted to make about justification by faith.

Interestingly, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a letter was found entitled Miqsat Ma'ase HaTorah. Early translations titled it something like "Certain Precepts of the Law". Miqsat can mean things like "certain" or "some", but it can also signify a level of importance. And the letter focuses on certain "precepts of the law" that the author is encouraging the recipient to do, so they seem important to the author. As for Ma'ase HaTorah, using the ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, it's clear that the Greek translation of those words are Ergon Nomou. Those are the exact words Paul uses that we translate in English as "works of the law". This DSS letter is talking about "works of the law".

But, we probably shouldn't just think of it as "works of the law". It's probably better to think of it as "Works of the Law". The laws detailed are unique. It's a category of laws, rather than just a reference to any and every commandment. Kind of like how we might say "freedom of speech". We could break down each word to define what the phrase means. But, the phrase probably mostly refers to the first amendment and the laws against the government restricting speech. It's better though of as "Freedom of Speech". The DSS letter focused on cleanliness and purity, primarily things that separate Jews from Gentiles. There are laws about Gentiles in the temple, food laws, and other things that are in the clean/unclean realm. It's not talking about murder or stealing or loving your neighbor nor does it have the full Torah in mind.

So, if scholars (who are part of what's known as The New Perspective on Paul) are right, Paul isn't arguing against Judaism and Torah. By saying that justification doesn't come from works of the law, he's arguing that those types of laws that uniquely apply to Jews aren't the path to justification. Justification is available to all, even Gentiles, by faith. He even uses Abraham as part of his argument to show that Abraham was justified prior to being circumcised and certainly well before the Sinai covenant. Gentiles don't need to join the Sinai covenant through circumcision and become Jewish. They just need to be like Abraham and join that Abrahamic covenant by way of faith.

The DSS sect were a minority view within Judaism. The rabbinic literature and the history of Judaism show that the Pharisees were normative, not this group hiding out in the desert. Paul's not arguing against mainstream Judaism. Notice in 2:16 Paul says "we know...". It was never about justification by the category of commandments known as "works of the law". So if it was never about that, Paul's wondering why they are entertaining the idea of making it that. He's arguing against a minority opinion that appears to have crept into the church at Galatia that says Gentiles have to become Jews. Paul says they don't. Gentiles are to remain Gentiles. Jews are to remain Jews. Both should follow Jesus and each have a role in the kingdom.

These are possibilities that weren't on people's radar before finding the DSS. The DSS gave us so much more information about the culture of Second Temple Judaism that previous generations didn't have.

Thanks for the education on this. I think this type of analysis is invaluable to understanding the historicity of the Bible. I also think the need to adjust for the time and culture of when it was written undermines the Bible's credibility as the Word of God. Let's just assume for a second that the Bible is divinely inspired. Rather than send a direct message to the entire world that would be timeless and applicable to all cultures, he allows a collection of writers in one small region of the earth to document the most significant occurrence in human history decades after it happens. Their writings undergo a series of alterations over the following centuries, some constructive, some with malintent, some through mistake until man presents us with the versions we see today. Now, 2,000 years later, we're tasked with considering the cultural norms of when it was written to correctly interpret how God wants us to behave in today's culture. So not only is God allowing his imperfect, sinful children to pass along his commandments, but he is also asking those imperfect, sinful children to interpret those commandments in an objective manner.

Yeah, I definitely used to think that any text inspired by God must, by definition, be easy for everyone to interpret. The more I learned about the difficulty, mostly due to the cultural chasm between us and them, the more I started to wonder what the heck was going on. However, my line of questioning has gone down the path of asking myself why I think it is necessary for the Bible to behave in a particular way. I mean, where did I even get the idea that something that's divinely inspired must be 100% historically accurate or support modern scientific discoveries? Why do I think it can't have any contradictions? Where I'm at now, instead of rejecting its inspiration, I've come to realize that I don't even know what it means for it to be inspired. Ancient commentators didn't always read the Bible with a wooden literal interpretation, yet they considered it "inspired". So maybe I just don't know what is meant by "inspired"?

I agree with your line of thinking in that if someone requires God to communicate a particular way and then concludes that the communication fails to meet that expectation, then there's a big problem. I just think that maybe it's my requirements that are off. Maybe the Bible isn't attempting to pass along commandments? Maybe it's not trying to give a guide to everyone on how to get to Heaven after we die?

Of course, I come at this with the built-in bias of a life-long believer. I recognize that certain evidence is going to impact me differently that someone with a different bias.

 

[dgreen]

Also, the dead sea scrolls were found in Qumran. That was one of those rural regional sects, the Essenes. Rural folk and mainstream folk from population centers have quite different cultures, so using the Essenes as an example of the prevailing culture of 1st century Jewish Christians is probably a reach.

Yeah, and I hope I didn't sound like I think the Essenes are an example of the prevailing culture. I intended to make the opposite point, that they weren't the prevailing culture and appear to have held the type of view that Paul might have been arguing against in Galatians. Long live the Pharisees!

However, I will say I've read a decent amount recently that finds similarities between the NT writers methods and those of Qumran, rather than rabbinic methods. Whether they were more Essene or Pharisee, the most important point, to me at least, is that they were very Jewish and very different from us.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

, I've come to realize that I don't even know what it means for it to be inspired.

I think posts in this thread are "inspired". Maybe not authoritative, but I assume that most believers are channeling their inner holy spirit. Whether that is God writing on their hearts or a brain defect that I share is a different debate. I don't think any of this will ever be scripture because while it may offer fresh perspectives on the "revelations", there are not really any new "revelations". Those half a dozen or so, at most essentials that make up the revelations are what I'd consider "God's Word", but they are so often obfuscated within larger narratives that as written, the bible is such that it is easy to lose the forest for the trees.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I cant figure out why the Bible is in question here given the fact that the people consuming it are imperfect. The reality is, the Bible could be all the things folks here have suggested it should be and it'd still be being consumed by broken people.

There are two parties in every line of communications (sender and receiver) The quest and design of the Bible is to get them talking. It's a third leg to start that relationship. It's not an answer book or vending machine sort of tool.

 

[Paddington]

2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture, or just the ones selected at Nicaea?

They weren't selected at Nicaea, they were confirmed at Nicaea, what everyone already knew, that they were the Inspired Word of God.

 

[Paddington]

I cant figure out why the Bible is in question here given the fact that the people consuming it are imperfect. The reality is, the Bible could be all the things folks here have suggested it should be and it'd still be being consumed by broken people.

There are two parties in every line of communications (sender and receiver) The quest and design of the Bible is to get them talking. It's a third leg to start that relationship. It's not an answer book or vending machine sort of tool.

If Christians were perfect, they wouldn't need a Savior. Jesus came to save sinners.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If Christians were perfect, they wouldn't need a Savior. Jesus came to save sinners.

Something that is perfect doesn't need or want anything. Nothing can be added to perfect to make things better.

 

[Paddington]

Where Did The New Testament Come From?

Where Did the New Testament Come From?

A history of how the books came to be recognized.

www.godtube.com

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I cant figure out why the Bible is in question here given the fact that the people consuming it are imperfect. The reality is, the Bible could be all the things folks here have suggested it should be and it'd still be being consumed by broken people.

There are two parties in every line of communications (sender and receiver) The quest and design of the Bible is to get them talking. It's a third leg to start that relationship. It's not an answer book or vending machine sort of tool.

If Christians were perfect, they wouldn't need a Savior. Jesus came to save sinners.

No idea what this comment has to do with what you were responding to it with.

 

[Chaos34]

Ok, I'm going to watch the Commanders hopefully secure that 6th seed over the evil Cowboys! I'll be back later.

See how this works. I apologized to you for praying for Trey and the Boys, but they lost anyway. I'm feeling quite agnostic about a god choosing your guys over my guys. Pfff

Okay, I'm going to cut to it without the compelling scriptures. When Cranks and I posted some basic "way to salvation" scriptures, we weren't seeking the roundabout replies we got. That's okay. It's all good and I'm sure we both appreciated the replies. Since the bible states God sacrificed his boy so that whosoever believes in him gets eternal life. And since the bible follows up with those who do not, ummm... go to hell.

What do you think about Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, agnostics, and peace loving shamanic healers in the Amazon? They do not accept Christ. Their fate?

That's where I was going with the two scriptures I followed Cranks with. I believe he was going there too.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

What do you think about Hindus,

Don't try to take Independence through Frisco on a Saturday?

And assuming you are a Dallas Cowboys fan, why on earth and heaven would you have wanted them to win anything since about November? I'd think for Cowboy's fans that Judgment Day for the current iteration couldn't come fast enough. The Cowboys seem to be on the same eternal "hope and prayer" purgatory that Steeler fans are stuck on that next year will be diffeent.

 

[dgreen]

Ok, I'm going to watch the Commanders hopefully secure that 6th seed over the evil Cowboys! I'll be back later.

See how this works. I apologized to you for praying for Trey and the Boys, but they lost anyway. I'm feeling quite agnostic about a god choosing your guys over my guys. Pfff

Okay, I'm going to cut to it without the compelling scriptures. When Cranks and I posted some basic "way to salvation" scriptures, we weren't seeking the roundabout replies we got. That's okay. It's all good and I'm sure we both appreciated the replies. Since the bible states God sacrificed his boy so that whosoever believes in him gets eternal life. And since the bible follows up with those who do not, ummm... go to hell.

What do you think about Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, agnostics, and peace loving shamanic healers in the Amazon? They do not accept Christ. Their fate?

That's where I was going with the two scriptures I followed Cranks with. I believe he was going there too.

I assume when you say "roundabout replies", you're referring to the responses that questioned your interpretation of those scriptures? Those replies that wondered if maybe those verses aren't saying what you (and obviously many, many others - I'm not trying to make this about you) think they are saying? I am much more with Tim Mackie on all this, so I think this line of questioning starts with some potentially faulty assumptions which makes it then hard to even discuss the fate of certain people based on those assumptions. It seems like you are looking for responses from people who agree with the above interpretation and what they think happens to Buddhists. Is that correct?

 

[Paddington]

I cant figure out why the Bible is in question here given the fact that the people consuming it are imperfect. The reality is, the Bible could be all the things folks here have suggested it should be and it'd still be being consumed by broken people.

There are two parties in every line of communications (sender and receiver) The quest and design of the Bible is to get them talking. It's a third leg to start that relationship. It's not an answer book or vending machine sort of tool.

If Christians were perfect, they wouldn't need a Savior. Jesus came to save sinners.

No idea what this comment has to do with what you were responding to it with.

Sorry, I think I may have replied to the wrong post.

 

[Paddington]

Where Did The New Testament Come From?

Where Did the New Testament Come From?

A history of how the books came to be recognized.

www.godtube.com

A Video Explaining the Origins Of The New Testament

 

[Chaos34]

Ok, I'm going to watch the Commanders hopefully secure that 6th seed over the evil Cowboys! I'll be back later.

See how this works. I apologized to you for praying for Trey and the Boys, but they lost anyway. I'm feeling quite agnostic about a god choosing your guys over my guys. Pfff

Okay, I'm going to cut to it without the compelling scriptures. When Cranks and I posted some basic "way to salvation" scriptures, we weren't seeking the roundabout replies we got. That's okay. It's all good and I'm sure we both appreciated the replies. Since the bible states God sacrificed his boy so that whosoever believes in him gets eternal life. And since the bible follows up with those who do not, ummm... go to hell.

What do you think about Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, agnostics, and peace loving shamanic healers in the Amazon? They do not accept Christ. Their fate?

That's where I was going with the two scriptures I followed Cranks with. I believe he was going there too.

I assume when you say "roundabout replies", you're referring to the responses that questioned your interpretation of those scriptures? Those replies that wondered if maybe those verses aren't saying what you (and obviously many, many others - I'm not trying to make this about you) think they are saying? I am much more with Tim Mackie on all this, so I think this line of questioning starts with some potentially faulty assumptions which makes it then hard to even discuss the fate of certain people based on those assumptions. It seems like you are looking for responses from people who agree with the above interpretation and what they think happens to Buddhists. Is that correct?

No, not like that. The only assumption I made is the "way to be saved" scriptures are simple. I won't defer there, but I get that some see differently. I'm not looking for any particular type of response that isn't genuine. Just curious how various Christians feel about the end game for non-Christians. Mackie and the Adventists have a position that's widely held, but not nearly as popularly understood, so not widely enough in my opinion. I kind of hoped to go a couple rounds with a fire and brimstone guy. I won't guess at percentages but their position is also widely held. I like presenting the case for a God who isn't so evil and sadistic. Glad you do to.

I stumbled across a well-done vid on Nicaea last night. Watched it kinda fact checking myself since I rambled on about it. My post was accurate but incomplete. What struck me was the debate got so heated bishops struck other bishops. Yup, Bishop Nicholas of Myra crossed the meeting room and punched poor Bishop Arius, the founder of Arianism, right in the face. This was after days of debate and herculean efforts to word something that everyone would sign. Eventually Constantine had to settle it with what seemed the best he was gonna get. Those that wouldn't sign were booted, exiled, condemned. That's how it ended. The pugilistic Nicholas of Myra went home to do enough good works to later be dubbed the patron saint of children and sailors, Saint Nicholas aka Santa Claus.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Just curious how various Christians feel about the end game for non-Christians.

I did my best to answer that above. I can't speak for all Christians but I think lots see it like I do with "we'll see".

 

[Paddington]

Here Is Something I Wrote Several Years Ago, To Prove That Jesus Christ Is God

THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT JESUS CHRIST IS GOD & GOD IS 3 IN 1

There are some religions out there that believe and teach that Jesus Christ is not God. Some teach that He is a god, but not thee God. I am going to demonstrate through the word of God that He is God and created all things.

Jesus's name "Immanuel" LITERALLY means "God with us"

Mt 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."

Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Jesus is The Great God & Our Savior

Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

He always existed (from everlasting):

Mic 5:2 (NKJV) "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [Though] you are little among the thousands of Judah, [Yet] out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth [are] from of old, From everlasting."

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
(KJV)

Jesus Christ is one with the Father.

Joh 14:8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God:

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Jesus Christ is one with the Father:

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
(KJV)

Believers are to be Baptized in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost:

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: {teach...: or, make disciples, or, Christians of all nations}
(KJV)

The Trinity Present At Christ's Baptism:

Lu 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Jesus declares Himself to be the great I AM of the Old Testiment. I AM is God's Name

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

I am IS God. There is only one God. That God has three parts.

Ex 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

His Disciple/Apostle Peter Admits that Jesus knows "All things" (Only God knows all things)

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

The Bible calls Jesus Christ The Great God and our Savior:

*** 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Jesus Knows Our Thoughts

Mt 9:4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?

Lu 11:17 But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls.

In Him Dwells all of the fullness of the Godhead Bodily:

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {rudiments: or, elements} {make a prey: or, seduce you, or, lead you astray} For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: {his...: Gr. the Son of his love}
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

He is the image of the invisible God. All things were created by Him:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. {in...: or, among all} 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

God's plurality is found in Genesis

Ge 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

His Disciple/Apostle Thomas Confessed Him to be God and Jesus did NOT rebuke Him for it:

Joh 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

This verse demonstrates how God has multiple aspects. He said Let "US" make man in "OUR" image. He didn't say, let me make man in My image, He said let US make man is OUR image.

His Apostle/Disciple John declares Christ Jesus to be God:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

His Apostle/Disciple John declares that the world was made by Him (Jesus Christ)

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

All things were made by Him and He was in the beginning with God (Father)

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

There are MANY places where He is worshipped and Jesus NEVER tells them not to worship Him, NOT once. Only God is to be worshipped, because Jesus IS God, Jesus IS worshipped:

Mt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. {presented: or, offered}
Mt 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Mt 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Mt 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Scripture refers to Him as the Lord, Jesus Christ. The phrase "The Lord" is unique only to God:

Here are a few mentioning "The Lord Your God"

De 5:6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. {bondage: Heb. servants}

De 5:11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Here are many calling Him Jesus Christ, The Lord.

Ac 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Ro 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. <<The second [epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.]>>

Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: {conversation...: or, we live or conduct ourselves as citizens of heaven, or, for obtaining heaven}

1Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Trinity (Three in one)

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Father, Son and Spirit Present at Christ's Baptism:

Mt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

[dkp993]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

 

[Zow]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

But the thing you’re questioning says it’s true. Duh. How is that not enough for you?

ETA: With the moderator's appropriate comment posted just after mine, I want to provide a more serious comment hereto because, again, I think this is a poignant example of just how strong the "faith" factor plays in to talking about these sorts of issue. I say this because 15 year old me absolutely would have taken no issue with Paddington's post and would have agreed with it whereas 41 year old me sees the blatant circular logic with Paddington's post to the point where comedy and snark are the natural reactions.

In other words, while this thread has been overwhelming productive all things considered and I'm hopeful that it will continued to be so, I agree with a prior poster (I think it was @IvanKaramazov ) who basically posited upthread that meaningful discussions about "proof" of God's existence and, if so, whether the Bible is H/his word will inevitably fall short. I unfortunately agree because, when factoring in faith, believers v. non-believers are just going to start the discussion coming from two completely "ballparks" and common ground will not be found because of the inherent disagreement over the very basic fundamental principle that starts the discussion will almost certainly never be resolved.

 

[FBG Moderator]

I feel like Paddington may be Billy Mays arisen.

We've been mostly able to discuss this well here. Please don't drop down to trolling insults like that.

 

[Paddington]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

What did I say that is false? Are you referring to the Biblical Proof I sent about Jesus being God? Because that was for Christians who Believe that the Bible is God's Word. I can prove He is God in other ways also.

 

[Paddington]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

But the thing you’re questioning says it’s true. Duh. How is that not enough for you?

ETA: With the moderator's appropriate comment posted just after mine, I want to provide a more serious comment hereto because, again, I think this is a poignant example of just how strong the "faith" factor plays in to talking about these sorts of issue. I say this because 15 year old me absolutely would have taken no issue with Paddington's post and would have agreed with it whereas 41 year old me sees the blatant circular logic with Paddington's post to the point where comedy and snark are the natural reactions.

In other words, while this thread has been overwhelming productive all things considered and I'm hopeful that it will continued to be so, I agree with a prior poster (I think it was @IvanKaramazov ) who basically posited upthread that meaningful discussions about "proof" of God's existence and, if so, whether the Bible is H/his word will inevitably fall short. I unfortunately agree because, when factoring in faith, believers v. non-believers are just going to start the discussion coming from two completely "ballparks" and common ground will not be found because of the inherent disagreement over the very basic fundamental principle that starts the discussion will almost certainly never be resolved.

You're not understanding that the post I put regarding Christ being God, was BIBLICAL Evidence meant for those who believe the Scriptures, not necessarily for those who do not. I can prove Christ is God with both Secular AND Biblical evidence. The Resurrection of Christ proves that He is God and many other things. Have you looked at the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ? They aren't Scripture and they aren't written by Believers in Christ, yet they support the Biblical account.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

 

[Zow]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

But the thing you’re questioning says it’s true. Duh. How is that not enough for you?

ETA: With the moderator's appropriate comment posted just after mine, I want to provide a more serious comment hereto because, again, I think this is a poignant example of just how strong the "faith" factor plays in to talking about these sorts of issue. I say this because 15 year old me absolutely would have taken no issue with Paddington's post and would have agreed with it whereas 41 year old me sees the blatant circular logic with Paddington's post to the point where comedy and snark are the natural reactions.

In other words, while this thread has been overwhelming productive all things considered and I'm hopeful that it will continued to be so, I agree with a prior poster (I think it was @IvanKaramazov ) who basically posited upthread that meaningful discussions about "proof" of God's existence and, if so, whether the Bible is H/his word will inevitably fall short. I unfortunately agree because, when factoring in faith, believers v. non-believers are just going to start the discussion coming from two completely "ballparks" and common ground will not be found because of the inherent disagreement over the very basic fundamental principle that starts the discussion will almost certainly never be resolved.

You're not understanding that the post I put regarding Christ being God, was BIBLICAL Evidence meant for those who believe the Scriptures, not necessarily for those who do not. I can prove Christ is God with both Secular AND Biblical evidence. The Resurrection of Christ proves that He is God and many other things. Have you looked at the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ? They aren't Scripture and they aren't written by Believers in Christ, yet they support the Biblical account.

Are you referring to the 2006 article by Dr. Nelson Price?

That is the only title and/or proper noun I could find when I googled the bold. I assume since you capitalized the phrase you are referring to a book title or something?

I'd also note that I'm not so certain that the issue here is whether people believe that there was a guy named Jesus that people followed who claimed to be God and challenged the Pharisees and was crucified around 25 C.E./AD 25. Instead, I think the issue being discussed is whether God actually exists and sent his son - who is also God - to Earth to walk around as human-like and die in order to open the gates of heaven. Respectfully, those are grossly distinct issues.

Personally, I think it is possible if not probable that there was a guy named Jesus and that he was crucified and people wrote about him in the decades following. I think because of his claims and the fact he drew followers he was likely notable and was then naturally written about. To compare him to modern day, he could easily have been a prominent figure like L. Ron Hubbard, Ghandi, Adolf Hitler, or David Koresh (any of whom, for all we know, could be deified in the next few centuries as they were notable figures who annoyed rulers, sparked a following, and have been written extensively about). A historical comparison is Muhammad (who also very probably existed).

So, if the proffer is that the Jesus figure is mentioned in secular writings in the first or second centuries - like by a Pliny the Younger or something - I don't find that surprising and wouldn't argue that it is some evidence that Jesus existed because, again, I find it quite possible that a guy named Jesus existed. I nonetheless don't find it compelling evidence that Jesus is God mainly because it is not compelling evidence that God exists (i.e. that some guy named Jesus claimed to be a son of H/him in 25 C.E.).

 

[Navin Johnson]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

What did I say that is false? Are you referring to the Biblical Proof I sent about Jesus being God? Because that was for Christians who Believe that the Bible is God's Word. I can prove He is God in other ways also.

Not everyone has the same presupposition that the Bible is a historical document. If you could indeed prove it, there would be no need for faith, would there?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

This is wise to understand. By scientific standards the word "proof" shouldnt ever be used in these conversations and believers should be completely fine with that. This is a belief system. None of it has to be "proven" as all the beliefs go beyond what evidence requires/allows.

 

[dgreen]

Wesley Huff is someone who has gained some popularity recently because of a debate he had with Billy Carson. Carson is someone who is, at best, misinformed about so many things about the Bible. After the discussion, Carson has tried to force Huff to take down videos of their debate and has threatened to sue him, likely because of how it clearly showed that Billy doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to those topics. So, recently, Joe Rogan had Huff on his podcast for what I thought was a good conversation. Rogan goes on some tangents that aren't in Wesley's wheelhouse and I, personally, found those parts to be far less interesting. But, if anyone is a nerd and is interested in Biblical languages and manuscripts and the history of that whole process, you might enjoy this episode:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[BobbyLayne]

Wesley Huff is someone who has gained some popularity recently because of a debate he had with Billy Carson. Carson is someone who is, at best, misinformed about so many things about the Bible. After the discussion, Carson has tried to force Huff to take down videos of their debate and has threatened to sue him, likely because of how it clearly showed that Billy doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to those topics. So, recently, Joe Rogan had Huff on his podcast for what I thought was a good conversation. Rogan goes on some tangents that aren't in Wesley's wheelhouse and I, personally, found those parts to be far less interesting. But, if anyone is a nerd and is interested in Biblical languages and manuscripts and the history of that whole process, you might enjoy this episode:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

“Christian without Christ leaves you with just Ian, and Ian is a good guy and all. But he can’t save you.”

 

[BobbyLayne]

This is a pretty fun rabbit hole to go down

WesleyHuff.com

 

[BobbyLayne]

Wesley Huff is someone who has gained some popularity recently because of a debate he had with Billy Carson. Carson is someone who is, at best, misinformed about so many things about the Bible. After the discussion, Carson has tried to force Huff to take down videos of their debate and has threatened to sue him, likely because of how it clearly showed that Billy doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to those topics. So, recently, Joe Rogan had Huff on his podcast for what I thought was a good conversation. Rogan goes on some tangents that aren't in Wesley's wheelhouse and I, personally, found those parts to be far less interesting. But, if anyone is a nerd and is interested in Biblical languages and manuscripts and the history of that whole process, you might enjoy this episode:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Since Rogan & Huff reference the debate so much, if you want to see it for yourself:

Full unedited unabridged Wes Huff v Billy Carson debate

 

[Joe Bryant]

Wesley Huff is someone who has gained some popularity recently because of a debate he had with Billy Carson. Carson is someone who is, at best, misinformed about so many things about the Bible. After the discussion, Carson has tried to force Huff to take down videos of their debate and has threatened to sue him, likely because of how it clearly showed that Billy doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to those topics. So, recently, Joe Rogan had Huff on his podcast for what I thought was a good conversation. Rogan goes on some tangents that aren't in Wesley's wheelhouse and I, personally, found those parts to be far less interesting. But, if anyone is a nerd and is interested in Biblical languages and manuscripts and the history of that whole process, you might enjoy this episode:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Thanks for sharing. I'd not seen that.

 

[Paddington]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

But the thing you’re questioning says it’s true. Duh. How is that not enough for you?

ETA: With the moderator's appropriate comment posted just after mine, I want to provide a more serious comment hereto because, again, I think this is a poignant example of just how strong the "faith" factor plays in to talking about these sorts of issue. I say this because 15 year old me absolutely would have taken no issue with Paddington's post and would have agreed with it whereas 41 year old me sees the blatant circular logic with Paddington's post to the point where comedy and snark are the natural reactions.

In other words, while this thread has been overwhelming productive all things considered and I'm hopeful that it will continued to be so, I agree with a prior poster (I think it was @IvanKaramazov ) who basically posited upthread that meaningful discussions about "proof" of God's existence and, if so, whether the Bible is H/his word will inevitably fall short. I unfortunately agree because, when factoring in faith, believers v. non-believers are just going to start the discussion coming from two completely "ballparks" and common ground will not be found because of the inherent disagreement over the very basic fundamental principle that starts the discussion will almost certainly never be resolved.

You're not understanding that the post I put regarding Christ being God, was BIBLICAL Evidence meant for those who believe the Scriptures, not necessarily for those who do not. I can prove Christ is God with both Secular AND Biblical evidence. The Resurrection of Christ proves that He is God and many other things. Have you looked at the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ? They aren't Scripture and they aren't written by Believers in Christ, yet they support the Biblical account.

Are you referring to the 2006 article by Dr. Nelson Price?

That is the only title and/or proper noun I could find when I googled the bold. I assume since you capitalized the phrase you are referring to a book title or something?

I'd also note that I'm not so certain that the issue here is whether people believe that there was a guy named Jesus that people followed who claimed to be God and challenged the Pharisees and was crucified around 25 C.E./AD 25. Instead, I think the issue being discussed is whether God actually exists and sent his son - who is also God - to Earth to walk around as human-like and die in order to open the gates of heaven. Respectfully, those are grossly distinct issues.

Personally, I think it is possible if not probable that there was a guy named Jesus and that he was crucified and people wrote about him in the decades following. I think because of his claims and the fact he drew followers he was likely notable and was then naturally written about. To compare him to modern day, he could easily have been a prominent figure like L. Ron Hubbard, Ghandi, Adolf Hitler, or David Koresh (any of whom, for all we know, could be deified in the next few centuries as they were notable figures who annoyed rulers, sparked a following, and have been written extensively about). A historical comparison is Muhammad (who also very probably existed).

So, if the proffer is that the Jesus figure is mentioned in secular writings in the first or second centuries - like by a Pliny the Younger or something - I don't find that surprising and wouldn't argue that it is some evidence that Jesus existed because, again, I find it quite possible that a guy named Jesus existed. I nonetheless don't find it compelling evidence that Jesus is God mainly because it is not compelling evidence that God exists (i.e. that some guy named Jesus claimed to be a son of H/him in 25 C.E.).

1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.
3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.
4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.
7) Yes Dr Nelson Price does list many of the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ, but not all. The writings of Josephus also talk about Jesus Christ. There are also Early Church Writings that give some history. I am sure there are other writings as well other than those listed by Dr Nelson Price.

Jesus Christ is God.

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

 

[Paddington]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

What did I say that is false? Are you referring to the Biblical Proof I sent about Jesus being God? Because that was for Christians who Believe that the Bible is God's Word. I can prove He is God in other ways also.

Not everyone has the same presupposition that the Bible is a historical document. If you could indeed prove it, there would be no need for faith, would there?

I can tell you that there has never been a single artifact found by Archaeologists that disprove anything in the Biblical History. They HAVE found plenty of evidence in support of the Bible being true. They found the decree of Artaxerxes allowing the Jews to rebuild the Temple in the 4 Century BC. This decree set a timeline for Daniels 70 weeks, which pointed to the exact time that Jesus Christ would die on the cross for our sins. Look up the 70 weeks of Daniel on the internet for clarification. Daniel is a book in the Bible and a prophet who prophesied of end time things to come. He lived in the 6th Century BC. Anyway, the more you study it all, the more you know that it's God's Word and it's all true.

​

 

[Paddington]

Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.

This is wise to understand. By scientific standards the word "proof" shouldnt ever be used in these conversations and believers should be completely fine with that. This is a belief system. None of it has to be "proven" as all the beliefs go beyond what evidence requires/allows.

There is plenty of evidence to prove that God exists and that it's the God of the Bible. Scientific Law states that Matter and Energy cannot exist because it's impossible for matter and energy to be created or destroyed, yet here we are in violation of Scientific Law. Scientifically, Abiogenesis, life cannot come from non Life, no Science experiment has ever created Life under even the most ideal and favorable conditions. Irreducible complexity proves that many aspects of the human body could not have evolved because they require to many variables to be in place at once in order for them to work or it would all collapse. Many more things, so, that goes to show that what Christians believe really is supported by the evidence.